stcordova: Here in Virginia, a blue state, the liberal candidate Northam was in favor of sancturary citicies. Since there are so many victims of MS-13 gangs here, he’s now slipping in the polls. On a minor note, someone who attended my creationist sunday school is running on the Republican ticket for the Virginia state legistlature…..

stcordova: They don’t share YOUR view of what it means to be an American.

They share Trump’s view, because it’s THEIR view.

Actually, polls show that Repubs are CHANGING the long “held” views they’ve hollered about for years to match whatever nonsense Trump tweets. Free traders are protectionists, long time football defenders now hate the NFL, Russia is an ally, etc.

The only thing they REALLY care about, it seems, is hating the “other guys.” You know, the libtards, immigrants, blacks, etc. Whatever Obama did or Clinton endorsed must be undone and not done, respectively whether these things have benefited or would benefit them or not.

walto: Why must an increase in economic grown always require the use of additional natural resources?

How could it not? Economics is a sub-category of ecology. The use-value of commodities is what they can do, which is to say, of the energy they contain. That energy must come from somewhere — somewhere where there’s a lot more energy than can we can ever use. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can’t be broken, only bent.

walto: Why must an increase in economic grown always require the use of additional natural resources?

How could it not?

Value added. More efficient use of resources. Certainly the amount of use of energy per unit of GDP (constant dollars) has gone down over time in the US. Some of it’s probably due to more energy-intensive industries diminishing in the US and increasing elsewhere, but certainly much is due to improvements in resource use. Computers being a spectacular example.

Of course more efficiency does free up money to buy more stuff/services, which does tend to cause growth to increase resource use as a practical matter. But there’s nothing that means economic growth must increase resource use. Doing more with less has often proved possible.

walto: Why must an increase in economic grown always require the use of additional natural resources?

I guess I could weasel out of it by saying I didn’t use “must”. Is it inevitable? History suggests so. Glen is optimistic in bringing up computers as a light footprint on the Earth. I’m not so sure if one looks at the mining of rare earth metals as a factor. KN points out growth involves production involves energy consumption and I strongly support the move to renewable energy sources where possible. Recycling of materials can help too.

Alan Fox: Glen is optimistic in bringing up computers as a light footprint on the Earth. I’m not so sure if one looks at the mining of rare earth metals as a factor.

Um, no, the point of computers was how much more they can do with much the same inputs now than they could do 30 years ago, or so. But if one did consider trying to do today what we do without computers, it’s quite clear that computers have increased efficiency a good deal overall.

Are rare earths an especially big deal for computers? They’re really more of an issue with portable computers, including smart phones, than for computing per se. That said, while computers have become portable (a bad thing? I tend to think not), rare earths are also an issue for so-called “green-energy,” like iron neodymium boron magnets in windmills, and rare earths in electric vehicle batteries. Obviously the mining can be done better or worse, and it probably it hasn’t been especially environmentally damaging in the US, while the big rare earth producer, China, pushed for world production dominance (quite successfully) without much regard for the environment. Only later did they start worrying about the impact, whining that the world was using their rare earths and causing pollution in China thereby. Well, that was their plan, until it wasn’t.

Anyway, I do think today’s computers are rather more efficient than those of decades past, and the hope of “green energy” typically rests on computer-aided designs and computational implementation. Hybrid vehicles exist because of electronics, and electric vehicles really work well due to computer-aided design and electronics. You don’t get your renewables working well without computers and associated electronics.

GlenDavidson: …the big rare earth producer, China, pushed for world production dominance (quite successfully) without much regard for the environment. Only later did they start worrying about the impact, whining that the world was using their rare earths and causing pollution in China thereby. Well, that was their plan, until it wasn’t.

I have heard it suggested the Chinese had a cunning plan to dominate the production of rare earth elements, undercutting production costs of rival suppliers to the extent that the expertise would be lost elsewhere and they would then be able to corner the world market (97% currently, it says here).

One reason ID proponents avoid religious discussion even among themselves? Catholics and Protestants and a variety of denominations like Mormon’s, Jehova’s Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Evangelicals, etc. will quickly not get along if we engage in this.

UD being a highly Roman Catholic website, despite being thought as a “fundy” site by atheists, was not exactly happy with my Evangelical views. I lost my posting privileges shortly after people inquired about my de-conversion from Cathloicism and articulated why I left the Roman Catholic church.

I celebrate Reformation Sunday today, so I thought about my eventual banning from UD in part for my religious views.

Bill Dembski taught at a Baptist seminary, so he’s not Catholic. But remember the Early years of UD were run by Dave Scott who was an Extra Terrestrial Space Alien advocate of ID.

PaV is a Roman Catholic. So, most of the posts were eventually dominated by Roman Catholics, but not obviously so. I didn’t emphasize the differences under the big tent, but then in some post I mentioned in passing that I was an ex-Catholic, the brought the wrath of a lot of commenters.

About a week later I was demoted under the pretense of me posting about Mark Armitage Lawsuit against a university (which he eventually collected lots of money on) . Barry said I showed bad judgement mentioning Armitage and then demotes me on that pretense only for Denyse O’Leary pretty much reported the identical thing a few days later and suffered no repercussions.

Value added.More efficient use of resources.Certainly the amount of use of energy per unit of GDP (constant dollars) has gone down over time in the US.Some of it’s probably due to more energy-intensive industries diminishing in the US and increasing elsewhere, but certainly much is due to improvements in resource use.Computers being a spectacular example.

Of course more efficiency does free up money to buy more stuff/services, which does tend to cause growth to increase resource use as a practical matter.But there’s nothing that means economic growth must increase resource use.Doing more with less has often proved possible.

The standard definition appears to be an increase in gross domestic product. Would that be correct?

That’s a poor definition, because it makes economic growth a purely national phenomenon. Better to define it as an increase in the gross product of an economy, whether that economy is local, regional, national, or global.

In any case, the point that walto and Glen are making is simple. The gross product of an economy can increase without an increase in the usage of natural resources. The two are not inextricably linked.

You and KN have an overly simplistic view of economic growth, which walto and Glen are trying to correct.

Your misunderstanding of GDP doesn’t rescue the definition of “economic growth” that you provided. Better to define it as an increase in the gross product of an economy, whether that economy is local, regional, national, or global.

In the meantime, do you see the point that walto and Glen are making? You and KN have an overly simplistic view of economic growth, seeing it as inextricably linked to an increased consumption of natural resources. That isn’t right.

The “growth” in “economic growth” refers to economic output, not to resource consumption. It’s possible for the former to grow even when the latter doesn’t.

keiths: Better to define it as an increase in the gross product of an economy, whether that economy is local, regional, national, or global.

I didn’t mention the economic unit. Of course you can start with an individual and add up any arbitrary number to arrive at the economic output from two individuals to the output of the whole world. You are disputing a point I didn’t make.

keiths: The “growth” in “economic growth” refers to economic output, not to resource consumption. It’s possible for the former to grow even when the latter doesn’t.

OK. So I said “I’d suggest that the Earth’s resources are finite and economic growth, without some form of magical accounting, is unsustainable.” and walto asked “Why must an increase in economic grown always require the use of additional natural resources?” to which I pointed out that I didn’t say “must”.

So let’s try some statements and see if anyone agrees or can be arsed to offer an opinion.

1. Historically, economic growth has led to an increase in exploitation of resources.

2. Economic growth often leads to an increase in exploitation of resources.

3. Economic growth rarely leads to an increase in exploitation of resources.

4. Economic growth never leads to an increase in exploitation of resources.

5. There is no correlation between economic growth and the exploitation of resources.
6. Exploitation of resources does not necessarily result in economic growth.

I don’t deny that economic growth often results in increased exploitation of natural resources. My point was that this isn’t a necessary connection. Glen mentioned productivity increases from computing; intensive farming and the elimination of strip mining are other examples. Again, the use of land value taxes is believed by many to discourage urban sprawl while increasing intensive urban development. It’s productivity AND environment enhancing.

Gotta think greener, boys. The only choices aren’t (1) the poor stay poor, or (2) rich people are separated from their money.

walto: Well, if we turn up our noses at economic growth, how can we improve the lot of the poor without soaking the rich?

Not sure turned up noses is a long-term choice. You raise huge interconnected issues, which are difficult to encompass in a blog comment. Don’t know about you but I seem to have inherited Cassandra’s curse. I have a ton of solutions to the World’s problems but nobody listens to me.

Difficult to order a list but:
Climate change
Population growth
Habitat destruction and unsustainable farming practices
Political unrest
Unfairness in economic distribution between the old and established and the young and dispossessed

Have I missed something? How would you order the Word’s problems? What would you suggest for solutions?

My point is that you’re changing the subject to all the world’s problems instead of addressing the issue.

Do you understand the very simple point walto is trying to convey to you and KN? Namely, that there is no necessary connection between economic growth and increased consumption of finite natural resources?

walto: Actually, polls show that Repubs are CHANGING the long “held” views they’ve hollered about for years to match whatever nonsense Trump tweets.Free traders are protectionists, long time football defenders now hate the NFL, Russia is an ally, etc.

The only thing they REALLY care about, it seems, is hating the “other guys.”You know, the libtards, immigrants, blacks, etc.Whatever Obama did or Clinton endorsed must be undone and not done, respectively whether these things have benefited or would benefit them or not.

The U.S. is in a dangerously polarized state right now, IMHO.

One thing I wanted to add to this–since this is a kind of religious site–is that until Trump a very large proportion of evangelicals (I think it was about 80%) believed that one had to live a certain way (not just say stuff they like) in order to be a defensible politician, someone they’d be willing to vote for. Now, they don’t care; fewer than 30% say that now.

The moral is that the only really important thing for Trump supporters is to beat the other guys. The particular policies advanced are secondary. Trump would win again if the election were today–and probably by more this time–in spite of his unspeakably disgusting/pathetic performance as a president and as a decent human being with reasonable cognitive capacities. All he’d have to do is say “Hillary Clinton” a bunch of times.

Alan Fox: Not sure turned up noses is a long-term choice. You raise huge interconnected issues, which are difficult to encompass in a blog comment. Don’t know about you but I seem to have inherited Cassandra’s curse. I have a ton of solutions to the World’s problems but nobody listens to me.

Difficult to order a list but:
Climate change
Population growth
Habitat destruction and unsustainable farming practices
Political unrest
Unfairness in economic distribution between the old and established and the young and dispossessed

Have I missed something? How would you order the Word’s problems? What would you suggest for solutions?

Anyone?

FWIW, I don’t think your list is exhaustive of the big problems faced by today’s world. But, in any case, I’d like to hear your proposed solutions to some of them. Take political unrest. What would you suggest?

walto: Trump would win again if the election were today–and probably by more this time–in spite of his unspeakably disgusting/pathetic performance as a president and as a decent human being with reasonable cognitive capacities. All he’d have to do is say “Hillary Clinton” a bunch of times.

And I know whose favorability ratings are higher: Obama’s and Biden’s. But Obama can’t run again and Biden hasn’t been pummeled by the Bannon/Putin machine yet. We know that roughly a third of the U.S. population will support Trump (or any other Fox/Bannon designee) even if he were to be caught on video killing someone on Fifth Ave or raping a 14-year-old and bragging about it. There’s nothing like that kind of loyalty either on the left or in the center. (And, of course, there shouldn’t be).

But that’s reason to despair. Trump doesn’t NEED a decent favorability rating. He’s got more blind support than anybody else, and he’s got the armed forces (and the White House full of generals). And the House districts have been gerrymandered to a faretheewell. That’s sufficient, I think.

Trump’s administration of know-nothings, thugs and kleptocrats are tearing up the country–in particular by befouling the judiciary and gutting the regulatory environment and ethics rules–every single day. His constant lying, bragging and bullying have already been extremely harmful to the institution of the presidency. And, of course, a lot of people’s health insurance premiums are about to shoot up, while coverage has already gotten worse–especially for women.

If Mueller gets close to Trump’s finances, the investigation will be defunded. The country is in a very bad state.

I am not so sure about this. I think even if Trumps lasts (which I doubt) , a slightly more establishment Republican could challenge him in the primaries and beat him. Of course the crazies love him, but I think everyone else is pretty much exhausted already, and he still hasn’t even done one single thing yet.

30% isn’t going to win anything, he was lucky to pick up another 15% from the soccer moms who just figured why not try it. Will be harder next time.

Me, neither. I was hoping that folks might add to it, disagree with it, dispute my choice of ordering etc.

But, in any case, I’d like to hear your proposed solutions to some of them. Take political unrest. What would you suggest?

I’d suggest unrest and direct action are easier to foment when groups are disenfranchised, when people see no democratic route to remedy unfairness, injustice and exclusion. Plenty of current examples to support that: Trump, Brexit, Catalunya. Perhaps adversarial politics and that elections give winners carte blanche to enact promised policies or to not bother and spend their time tweeting and playing golf is a problem that needs addressing. Compromise shouldn’t be a dirty word. Better to get some of what you want than none.

My main worry is that it is the young and the poor who seem to have no stake in the political system. For example, in the US it is wealth (especially corporate wealth) that buys influence. That influence is used to extract more wealth which buys more influence and the cycle continues.

A few practical (?) ideas. Ban campaign contributions from corporations and cap total election expenditure. Make voting as easy as possible, registration should be automatic when registering a change of address, make on-line voting the norm together with making voting compulsory (with a box for abstention and write-in). Introduce fair voting that makes all votes count equally, a system of proportional representation. With on-line voting, publish cumulative results in real time so that people can vote tactically.

I vaguely recall reading a description of a democratic system based on local committees with a hierarchy of community, district, regional, national delegates at each level delegating representatives to the next level. Not sure whether it was an ideal or has been tried somewhere.